|
Post by cleefarqhuar on Nov 8, 2013 17:43:25 GMT
The Embassy Tea Gallery in London held an 'avant garde' art exhibition recently. (Therein lies a tale of cowardice as related later)
The winner and award receiver was one Victoria Burgher. Her exhibit consisted of the artist herself smilingly receiving the public viewers at the entrance and giving each person a simple stone. She advised each receiver of a stone 'To find where to put it' with a knowing wink
The visitors soon discovered that the stone was to be placed in a sack by a pillar to which was nailed Article 104 of Iran's Islamic Penal Code that states with eery precision the required dimensions of stones to be used in stoning to death a woman found in adultery - 'the stone shall not be so big as to kill the person in one or two strikes, nor shall it be so small that it cannot be called a stone'
Bravo says I! (And everyone else one assumes excluding self-righteous multiculturalist lefties)
But why the cowardice? Well the exhibition was to have been held near the Tate modern, but the owners cancelled the exhibition shortly before the showing, so it was moved to the Embassy Tea Rooms
Their reason? They were mightily afraid of an Islamic backlash involving violence
Does anyone really believe that we do not have religious censorship in our Hollowed Land?
One exhibitor was cheered loudly by the visitors and judges
She was a Danish National, one Faroozah Bazrafktan. This Lady artist has just been convicted as a'racist' by the Danish Courts for publicly criticizing the Islamic cultural practice of FGM and stating that Moslem men abuse and murder their daughters, adding for good measure that the Koran is more immoral deplorable and crazy than the manuals of the other two great religions combined
She feistily told the convicting Danish Court that tha she would sooner go to prison than pay their fine
Her verdict on the Danish legal system? 'It is fucked'
My there are very brave very admirable people at large that must be quietened at all costs! (In the Pubic Interest of course)
|
|
pippop
pc
I love everyone here.
Posts: 1,110
|
Post by pippop on Nov 9, 2013 11:58:45 GMT
|
|
pippop
pc
I love everyone here.
Posts: 1,110
|
Post by pippop on Nov 9, 2013 17:41:34 GMT
[Fortunately, the truly radical owners of the Embassy Tea Gallery allowed the rebellious show to take over their space in Southwark, where it will run until Friday. The large crowd on the opening night cheered Firoozeh Bazrafkan. Meanwhile, the judges decided that the best piece on display was ‘The Perfect Stone’ by Victoria Burgher. A smiling woman gave visitors stones as they entered. ‘Find where to put it,’ she said with a conspiratorial wink. Galleries pull stunts like this all the time. In this instance, however, visitors found that the stone went into a sack by a pillar. Above it was Article 104 of Iran’s Islamic Penal Code, which states with creepy precision that when a woman is stoned to death for adultery, ‘the stone shall not be so big so as to kill the person by one or two strikes, neither shall it be so small that it cannot be called a stone’.]
Why change "creepy" to "eery"?
Creepy.
|
|
|
Post by aquatic on Nov 9, 2013 22:46:58 GMT
Why change "creepy" to "eery"? And why change 'eerie' to 'eery'?
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Nov 14, 2013 13:28:45 GMT
I have no idea but why don't YOU address the matter of the extreme reluctance of some movers and shakers to upset fascistic muslim sensibilities which has been raised by this change of venue?
|
|
pippop
pc
I love everyone here.
Posts: 1,110
|
Post by pippop on Nov 14, 2013 16:29:52 GMT
I have no idea but why don't YOU address the matter of the extreme reluctance of some movers and shakers to upset fascistic muslim sensibilities which has been raised by this change of venue? Me niether. Fucking creepy tho' innit? One place was worried they might get their windows smashed (or worse) so another place said "ok then, we'll put on the art show". That's the "story"? They don't mention in the Spectator if the other place subsequently had their windows smashed (or worse). I do not agree with smashing windows (or worse) whoever is doing it.
|
|
|
Post by aquatic on Nov 14, 2013 17:36:11 GMT
I have no idea but why don't YOU address the matter of the extreme reluctance of some movers and shakers to upset fascistic muslim sensibilities which has been raised by this change of venue? At least I refrained from expressing even more trivial reactions to the OP's Hollowed Land and Pubic Interest . Your avowed Islamophobia seems to be as extreme and dangerous in one direction as the views of radicalised fundamentalist Islamists are in the other. Any further comment from me risks provoking you into getting even more extreme, and I wouldn't want you to become a threat to pubic order.
|
|
pippop
pc
I love everyone here.
Posts: 1,110
|
Post by pippop on Nov 14, 2013 17:52:33 GMT
...I wouldn't want you to become a threat to pubic order. Heck no! There might be a Pussy Riot!
|
|
|
Post by ncsonde on Nov 17, 2013 2:56:37 GMT
Your avowed Islamophobia seems to be as extreme and dangerous in one direction as the views of radicalised fundamentalist Islamists are in the other. The terminally confused mantra of the culturally relativist left-liberalist everywhere, always. Replace the alternatives with what you want. Anti-Communism and Stalinism. Israeli self-defence and Arab genocidalism. Churchillian warmongering and Nazism. And always the same excuse: better to appease than upset the belligerent. But now we know why Marchesa is not allowed within 100 miles of the Shard.
|
|
|
Post by aquatic on Nov 18, 2013 15:47:40 GMT
Who's advocating appeasement?
|
|
|
Post by ncsonde on Nov 18, 2013 19:14:01 GMT
Anyone who refuses to engage in debate with the issues raised by this self-evident "clash of cultures" on the grounds of not disturbing "public order". Bury it under the carpet - it's someone else's problem. When it reaches Godalming you might start to take notice.
|
|
|
Post by ncsonde on Nov 18, 2013 19:48:13 GMT
Beyond that, it's people like Rowan Williams, the erstwhile Archbishop of Canterbury in case you didn't know, and why should you, and the usual suspects like David Cameron, Nick Clegg, and Ed Miliband, who are all in agreement that Moslems should have a separate legal system because they don't share British values. So, for example, it's seemingly right-on now that Moslems should be allowed to decide who gets child custody in a divorce case in their own courts. Nice and multi-culturally proper.
The fact that this means, under Sharia law, any child over seven automatically gets put into the custody of the father needn't worry us, surely, least of all on a "Woman's Board".
|
|
|
Post by aquatic on Nov 19, 2013 0:08:33 GMT
Anyone who refuses to engage in debate with the issues raised by this self-evident "clash of cultures" on the grounds of not disturbing "public order". Bury it under the carpet - it's someone else's problem. When it reaches Godalming you might start to take notice. Why exactly? OK, I cycled round the Devil's Punchbowl once, and got inveigled by a Satanist in the youth hostel in the dip when I had a kip, but so what?
|
|
|
Post by aquatic on Nov 19, 2013 0:31:35 GMT
Beyond that, it's people like Rowan Williams, the erstwhile Archbishop of Canterbury in case you didn't know, and why should you, and the usual suspects like David Cameron, Nick Clegg, and Ed Miliband, who are all in agreement that Moslems should have a separate legal system because they don't share British values. So, for example, it's seemingly right-on now that Moslems should be allowed to decide who gets child custody in a divorce case in their own courts. Nice and multi-culturally proper. The fact that this means, under Sharia law, any child over seven automatically gets put into the custody of the father needn't worry us, surely, least of all on a "Woman's Board". Yeah, yeah. Over the last few years I've let slip a few 'snippets' in good faith about my relative intimacy with muslims. Others (eg, MR) have exploited these let-slippages, mercilessly, as you'd expect. So I don't let slip any more. MR and you seem to want to have loads of big-deal clashes. I'm intent on having even more small-deal clashes until we deal with it.
|
|
|
Post by ncsonde on Nov 19, 2013 5:40:13 GMT
I've not seen her "exploit" your relationship, nor can I imagine how she could possibly do so. All I've seen her do is ask you pointed questions about your views on Islamism, in the light of your personal experience. If I remember rightly, that centred on the apparent necessity for your son to convert in order to marry your daughter-in-law. Is that right? How and why is that that "exploiting" your situation? It strikes me as a very pertinent issue - in general, but potentially illuminated, if you were prepared to, by your own experience.
I don't follow your last sentence, either. There's no "big-deal clash". I just disagree with you, that's all. As far as I can discern what your views are, that is: and that seems to be that there is no problem at all with Islam in this country, and if we all just stop talking about it any difficulties (that we shouldn't mention) will in time fade away.
They won't. They aren't. They won't until "moderate muslims" start to stand up and vocalise their opposition to what you call the "fundamentalists". And if and when they do, in sufficient numbers to create some sort of reformation of Islam here, then they'll need all the help they can get from their "hosts" who support their endeavours. Co-operating with the "fundamentalists" by acquiescing to their demands for a separate Islamic culture within this country is not helping such assimilation. This seems so obvious that it oughtn't to need saying, but apparently the leaders of the main political parties, the head of the established church, the chief legal officer, and apparently every other supposed "leader" in this country think as you do. That's because they live in Godalming.
|
|